I have been a scientist in the field of the earth and environmental sciences for 33 years, specializing in geologic disposal of nuclear waste, energy-related research, planetary surface processes, subsurface transport and environmental clean-up of heavy metals. I am a Trustee of the Herbert M. Parker Foundation and consult on strategic planning for the DOE, EPA/State environmental agencies, and industry including companies that own nuclear, hydro, wind farms, large solar arrays, coal and gas plants. I also consult for EPA/State environmental agencies and industry on clean-up of heavy metals from soil and water. For over 20 years I have been a member of Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the NRDC, the Environmental Defense Fund and many others, as well as professional societies including the America Nuclear Society, the American Chemical Society and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Germany -- Insane Or Just Plain Stupid?

After the tsunami destroyed the Fukushima plants, Germany moved quickly to shut eight nuclear power plants, and made plans do away completely with their nuclear capability. Despite the best safety record of any industry in the country, and the critical role nuclear plays in fueling German industry, Germany’s past experience with large tsunamis was just too horrific to ignore. And Germany’s strong economy and commitment to protect the environment were small prices to pay for Chancellor Merkel to shore up her weak coalition with the Free Democrats. Maybe she can ask Greece for help later.

Germany is building a fleet of new coal-fired power plants to replace their shuttered nuclear fleet, reversing their downward trend in carbon emissions and pollutants. Source: Parys Ryszard/Shutterstock

But don’t worry. Germany is building about 25 clean coal-fired power plants to offset the loss of nuclear and address Germany’s admittedly “unaffordably expensive and unreliable” renewable portfolio (Der Spiegel). The German Green Party can now celebrate the opening of a 2,200 MW coal-fired power plant near Cologne. It started spewing out its annual, relatively clean, 13 million tons of CO2, and other nasties, so much lower than those older dirty coal plants that would have put out 15 million tons of CO2 for the same power output.

A perfect fit to Germany’s low-carbon future.

We usually give the Germans credit for being rational, but this coal plant will emit over one million times more carbon this year than all of their nuclear plants would have over the next 20 years, and cost over twice as much to run as any one of the them. Germany’s present strategy will absolutely not allow them to reduce their carbon emissions anywhere near their goal of 40% by 2020.

Unless the German people give up the nice parts of their lifestyle and become insanely efficient, they most likely will not reduce their emissions at all by 2020.

But the new Federal Environment Minister, Peter Altmaier, was quite excited during his discussion of the new coal plant, “The new power plant is an impressive example of how the high levels of efficiency of modern coal- and gas-fired power plants not only help to reduce carbon emissions but can also make an outstanding contribution to the success of energy industry transformation” (Energy Business Review).

Wow, this coal plant is flexible indeed. It has a purported efficiency of 43%, up 10% from old plants. It can ramp up and down within minutes to meet renewable’s intermittency. It burns lignite coal, the cleanest of all coal, of which Germany has plenty. And at $3.4 billion, it’s a steal.

And it comes in the nick of time for German industry. Thanks to their Renewable Energy Act (EEG) and the shutting of their nuclear plants, the country’s energy costs are skyrocketing and driving German manufacturing out of business or off-shore (Germany Rethinks Its Energy Revolution).

The EEG is simple: renewables get a guaranteed high price for their electricity for almost a decade, the utilities have to take it onto the grid in front of all other energy sources, they have to buy it at rates way-above market value, and the difference is paid for by the average citizen at the end of each month.

What could go wrong?

Electricity costs are going up more rapidly than expected because Germany failed to integrate this EEG plan into the larger infrastructure development needed to implement it. The grid can’t handle it, the transmission system is not there, and the power disruptions and brownouts are wreaking havoc on the country’s energy reliability. And the consumer is expected to pay even more to fix these problems in the short-term.

No one thought Germany would be insane enough to shut down their nuclear plants, without a reason and without backup, when it was producing the cheapest energy in Europe. In fact, Germany’s nuclear production was the only economic way to implement the EEG, even if nuclear was to be phased out early as the new mix matured. And they could still be restarted relatively quickly and cheaply.

Coal mining is a dirty and dangerous business, but is getting better. That's good news for Germany, who's coal use is about to skyrocket. Source: NREL

But it better be quick, because all German industrial and manufacturing sectors – steel, aluminum, paper, cement, plastics, chemical – are migrating to countries with cheaper electricity as energy and carbon-costs are eating up to 50% of their expenses. Almost one in five German industrial companies plans to, or already has, shifted capacities abroad (Switch to Renewables Endangers Germany’s Industry).

ThyssenKrupp, Germany’s largest steelmaker, expects 5,000 job losses because of high electricity prices, and recently sold its Krefeld stainless steel mill to a Finnish competitor, devastating a little town on the Rhine. The Düsseldorf-based conglomerate GEA closed its zinc plant in nearby Datteln. Europe’s largest copper producer, Aurubis of Hamburg, announced plans to move some operations abroad, especially to Asia and South America, where energy is cheaper. Aluminum manufacturer Norsk Hydro substantially cut back production in its Neuss plant, having shut down two production lines completely, and forcing the plant’s 450 workers to reduced hours.

Seemingly unwitting, the green energy sector forgets that they also need steel, cement, and plastic, a fact noted, ironically, by the left-leaning Social Democratic Party Chairman Sigmar Gabriel.

As expected in the vicious circle started by all this, social unrest is just beginning. The average household in Germany will be paying almost double for energy next year compared to last year. Many of Germany’s poor and unemployed are on fixed energy credits, and can’t afford either the increased electricity costs or the cost of energy-efficient appliances that could counter their rising monthly bills. Wealthy citizens can install solar panels and actually make money on them.

Unfortunately, the middle-class is bearing the brunt of the tax burden for both the industry and the poor, as well as paying the bulk of the increasing monthly costs. Soon Germany may not have the economic engine to carry the rest of Europe through its financial crisis. Merkel will have to find another coalition or her government may fall.

So it’s a perfect storm for coal to come to the rescue. I mean, it’s clean, right?

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

It certainly is, that’s only $1.55 a Watt. For comparison, those nuclear plants cost between 5 and 8 a Watt (Darlington B was projected at $8.25, Vogtle comes in around $7). In fact, that number is so good, I’m suspicious… is that an all-in figure?

I don’t think so, but it is a good price. But the nuke plants are already paid for and cheap to operate at this point. And this $3.4 billion is just for the build. Although not as bad as natural gas, fueling is the most expensive part of coal and will cost at least 2 cents per kilowatt hour, so if this plant produces 2,200,000 kWh x 8766 hrs x 40 years x 0.8 cf = 617 billion kWhrs over it life then fuel costs will be $12 billion and operations will be 4$ billion = $16 billion. To keep running the nuclear plants to produce 617 billion kWhrs would cost about $12 billion but would not emit about 500 million tons of carbon. If everyone’s alright with that, then great. But it’s still cheaper and better to run the nuke plants until they’re ready to mothball. Then ramp up coal if you need to, it could even be clean by then.

This is a terribly researched article. So many inaccuracies and plain untruths, I’m astonished to find this on Forbes.

Chancellor Merkel is coalescing with the Free Democrats, not the Greens. The Greens are an opposition party.

I don’t know where the number of 25 coal plants comes from, but some are proposed by major utilities, much fewer are actually being built, and many do not even move forward due to their environmental impact and lack of certification.

You are saying there are brownouts disrupting the country’s grid. No such thing is happening in Germany, and reliability is much higher than most countries. It is feared that reliability may be impacted if no transmission is built.

“The average household in Germany will be paying almost double for energy next year compared to last year. ” That’s just complete bollocks! The EEG is expected to increase costs from 3.6 cent to 6cent per kw/h, but makes up a small part of the actual cost of electricity. Finally, you fail to mention the billions of Euros the four major utilities have been making in profits in the last few years. Guess how? By overcharging customers and blaming it on the drive to renewables.

Less sarcasm and more research may even make you a decent reporter, but this is just a tirade of falsehoods. Have you been writing Paul Ryan’s speech, too?

As an engineer and green supporter who has studied this industry, written about it and is making a film on it, this article hits the main point square on, even if the details are up for debate. Wind cannot, and will not, ever, replace base load on the grid. It’s a fool’s errand to try to replace coal, gas, nuclear or hydro power with wind. Why? It’s so simple a 5 year old gets it. What you want as everyone wants is Power = energy on demand. No one wants energy only when the wind blows. The fatal flaw in this plan is that Wind does not blow all the time. And it’s power cannot be stored on a national or regional grid level. Wind was abandoned several hundred years ago because it is unreliable and has no storage. The other power sources are all STORED energy which we use on demand: Power. Wind and solar will never power the electric grid and they are replacing carbon free sources like nuclear and hydro. and requiring coal and gas to ramp up and down inefficiently.

But our corrupt leaders do not want to understand, because the real purpose behind wind is to steal taxpayer dollars with the blessing of the public. Do you doubt that? Look at the biggest wind companies in Ontario for example: Suncor (tar sands oil), Florida Electric and power (coal plants), T Boone Pickens (oil). I know first hand that these crooks are getting $900k per year, guaranteed for 20 years, to produce unreliable energy that we don’t need and that is replacing paid for, cheaper, non-carbon sources like nuclear and hydro. And they are hurting people and the environment in the process turning farmland and nature preserves into industrial suburbs. This is pure insanity from an environmental, economic and safety perspective. The only thing that makes sense is that a few well-connected companies are making billions of dollars from the tax and ratepayers. Are you one of the victims?

So many people take an either-or stance. I have never understood those who ‘dream’ of a 100% wind and solar future, whenever they think it might occur. Even if storage were feasible on a massive, grid-level scale, it still cannot solve all the problems induced by the variability of those two energy sources. Day ahead electricity forecasting (demand and supply) is currently much more complicated as levels of renewable generation increase. Storage likely can solve much of the shorter term forecasting and corresponding network management actions, down to hours or even 15 minute intervals. But even a massive rebuild of our national grids – all of them – with some futuristic inclusion of large scale storage, will not be enough to guarantee reliable, high quality (appropriate voltage and frequency) electricity without some level of dispatchable generation.

It makes more sense to debate whether it is economically sound and overall a reasonable goal to target 20%, 30%, or 50% sourcing from renewables, and from which ones (hydro is more limited, e.g.). There are advantages, the largest of which is the very low marginal cost or pricing. Most technical people admit that the best solutions fall somewhere in the generic “all of the above” category given the complexity and uncertainty of the matter.

The political side of it, as always, is especially fraught with issues. Without getting into the debate here about historical energy subsidies and who gets what for what reason today, it is still safe to point out that tax payer dollars have been used by the elected class to ‘stimulate’ the electricity industry since a time shortly after the days of Edison and Westinghouse. Same with crops. Same transportation. If there is decent money involved, you can at a minimum predict industry and large, private investor involvement (Suncor, utilities, Pickens, etc.). But you can also predict the interjection and fiddling of governments, local and federal. There are ‘crooks’ at the turn of every corner, to use your phrase. Everyone finds a way to enrich themselves. Private investors look for the profits, the bigger the better. Industrial conglomerates look for managing risks by hedging and by diversifying. Surely GE wouldn’t be in the wind turbine business due only to some theoretical scam of accumulating taxpayer dollars, for one example. They have a lot at stake in the power industry, a situation better served by being able to provide a larger array of products and to be ready for whatever shifts occur. To think their motives for investing so much in R&D and in acquiring product and technology leaders is solely to take money from DC is an oversimplification of the facts.

One area more sinister is often the behavior of the elected class. While there are often noble and innocent goals on the front end of many subsidy “programs”, you only need to look at the corn ethanol industry to see how quickly graft, cronyism, and inertia take over. Reason and sensibility are out the window. People get rich by keeping the ball rolling, consequences be damned. On that we might agree. I think. If I read you correctly.

Woops, thank you, the Free Democrats. But her shutting the nukes is to garner support from the greens and the anti-nuke movement. the number of 25 has been in the news in Germany for the last few weeks but if they plan fewer that would be great. Not sure how they can make up the loss of the nukes with less than 20. Yes, up to now germany’s power has been very reliable, in large part because of the nukes, but according to the German DIHK, power and voltage fluctuations have become a major concern to industry and a reason to begin moving operations to other countries. But if everything’s fine and losing their nuclear fleet is no big, then that’s wonderful. I just don’t think ramping up coal is a good thing.

Hey Darion Oct 16th, in the Süddeutsche: “Wenn in den nächsten Monaten Konzerne und Stadtwerke in ganz Deutschland ihre Preise erhöhen, wird das vor allem jene hart treffen, die mit wenig Geld auskommen müssen. Zumal die meisten Stromversorger großes Geschick entwickelt haben, bei solchen Gelegenheiten gleich noch etwas kräftiger hinzulangen.” Ok, so if you want to get pedantic on James, fine. His point, though, is simple and valid: he’s describing the silliness of coal substitution for nuclear – particularly absurd in the presence of 90+ reactors in France 500 miles away – but his ‘stupid’ comment was because any rational analyst saw the price spike coming. That fact that the political post-Fukushima convenience would turn into a citizen’s pricing revolt was patently obvious to any student of this game. Yet, renewable planners are living well ahead of their time, and in a space fraught with political danger. Here’s the ‘insane’ bit: greens will now be painted as conducting a war on the poor. Hey! Welcome to the mob, dreamer! I assure you: the dynamics of the German energy markets affect us all, this is not an ‘outside in’ view. If the public strangles renewables and nuclear in a public lynching, how does that help us here? This is a global issue.